My main point was, and I think Morningstar will back me up here, is that the study is not a measure of how good fund managers in different countries are at being fund managers (ie - making money for their investors).

Secondly, I argued that the Morningstar scoring system is skewed to a researcher point of view of the world rather than how investors might weight the importance of funds management attributes.

For example, Morningstar makes a big deal out of how fund managers in New Zealand (and Australia for that matter) are not required to disclose portfolio holdings - both countries got huge mark-downs for that behaviour.

Meanwhile, Canada, where fund fees and taxes are just about world's worst, scraped in with a Morningstar C+, ahead of the C rated Australia. Both NZ and Australia scored pretty well on fund manager fees (not so good on taxes, but not so bad as Canada either) - call me old-fashioned but I reckon investors are more concerned that their funds don't cost much or will be taxed highly than knowing the exact contents of their portfolios.

Even so, Morningstar is right to argue for full disclosure of portfolio holdings and the industry should get on with it, can't hurt.

David is a freelance journalist who has covered the financial services business on both sides of the Tasman for over 15 years. He is the editor of industry website Investment News. David has edited magazines and websites for the financial advice, investment and superannuation industries.